Here is an excellent analysis of Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology, and Modified Covenant Theology reposted here with permission:

I am using a comparison from the www by self-confessed hyperCalvinist Brandon Kraft. If some of his characterizations are inaccurately portraying a particular view, I can't say. But, I will make my agreement or not (on each point) based on his outline as written (not necessarily as proponant textbooks may convey).

He has formulated his own alternative, which he calls "Modified Covenant Theology (MCT)", therefore it might be more rightly called BKCT, since there may be other folks who might appropriate the prosaic: "Modified Covenant Theology (MCT)" nomenclature.

Dispensational theology (DT) is not listed in this comparison (though it is in other comparisons on the WWW).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CT vs. NCT vs. MCT - a short comparison

CT = Covenant Theology
NCT = New Covenant Theology
MCT = Modified Covenant Theology


Adam
CT: Adam was perfectly righteous before he fell.

NCT: Same as CT.

MCT: Adam was righteous according to the laws given to him but still needed the righteousness of Christ.


PRO: I agree with CT, NCT (and probably DT).

Adam's legal arrangement and the fall
CT: If Adam had kept the law he would have merited eternal life. This is known as the "covenant of works". Adam broke the covenant of works and merited eternal death.


NCT: There is no "covenant of works". If Adam had obeyed the laws given to him, he could stay in the garden but that wouldn't merit eternal life. He broke the law and merited eternal death.


MCT: There is a covenant of works. If Adam had obeyed the laws given to him, he would have stayed in the garden, but not merit eternal life. However the point of giving this covenant of works was to cause the fall to demonstrate Adam's need for an alien righteousness and point him to Christ. The Old Covenant is another form of this covenant of works.


PRO: This comparison misses some points. Since death came by sin, if Adam had not sinned then "eternal life" as apposed to "not dying" would be a fact of the creation order. Presumably, in theory, the garden condition would've continued in perpetuity.

Further, the question below the surface of this argument-point is the Supra v. Infra debate. That is, was the garden scenario merely incidental means to get to the real plan: the redemptive death of Christ. Thus, the fall was decreed in order to set in motion the work of Christ. And so, there is no "what if Adam had not sinned" contingency to contemplate.

Moral Law
CT: The "moral law" is fully expressed in the Decalogue.

NCT: There is no "moral law".

MCT: All men are cursed by some form of law, not necessarily the same laws found in the original covenant of works or the Law at Sinai. There is a "moral law" that is revealed in nature which all men are obligated to obey. The OC Decalogue shines further light on this law.

PRO: I favor the MCT articulation, but haven't fully considerded the matter.

Covenant of Redemption
CT: The three persons of the Trinity covenanted with each other for the purpose of salvation of the elect. NCT: There is no covenant of redemption. There was just an eternal decree. MCT: Same as CT.

PRO: I'm not sure what is at issue here. Obviously the Trinity is "in agreement." Beyond that, any inner-trinitarian counsel is beyond our ability to know without specific revelation.

Covenant of Grace
CT: God made a covenant of grace with Christ and His people. Christ's people are found in all ages of history including Adam. The OC is a form of the covenant of grace.

NCT: There is no covenant of grace. God redeems His elect from every age; but the OC was a law covenant; therefore the term "covenant of grace" must not be used to describe these various covenants.

MCT: There is a covenant of grace which is best understood as the new covenant instituted in eternity and constituted on the cross. All the elect of all ages are partakers of the covenant of grace. However, unlike CT, the OC at Sinai is not an administration of the covenant of Grace; but is a law covenant meant to bring condemnation.

PRO: I think I agree with MCT in this point, but, I feel I could be argued out of that agreement if someone provided a compelling reason(s).

Christ's Imputed Righteousness
CT: Christ kept the law for His people in the Covenant of Grace thus fulfilling the Covenant of Works which merited for them eternal salvation.

NCT: Christ kept the law for His people to become the perfect sacrifice, but the righteousness wrought through this obedience is not imputed to the elect. Only Christ's righteousness through "passive obedience / death" is imputed to the elect. (not all NCT people deny vicarious law keeping.)

MCT: Same as CT. However, Christ's active obedience involves far more than legal obedience; it was obedience apart from the law – obedience to the Father's will in everything thus fulfilling the covenant of redemption. Christ's righteousness is a divine righteousness which was imputed to all of His elect on the cross.

PRO: I think I agree with them all to a certain extent, which tells me they need further elaboration and sharper distinctions as to why the other views are inadequate, or simply wrong.

View of the different Covenants
CT: The covenant of grace can be found in all the covenants (excluding the covenant of works) because they are derived from the covenant of redemption.

NCT: Since there is no covenant of redemption, all covenants are related and culminate in the new covenant.

MCT: The covenant of grace is best understood as the new covenant which is an overarching covenant and represented in all other covenants excluding administrations of the covenant of works (eg. Sinai).

PRO: I think I agree with NCT.

Abraham's Seed
CT: The main heir to Abraham was Israel, the "church" of the OC. (Some would affirm agreement with NCT).

NCT: The main heir to Abraham is Christ and His Sheep (spiritual Israel).

MCT: Same as NCT

PRO: I agree with NCT and MCT.

The Holy Spirit
CT: The Holy Spirit has taken up residence in and indwelt in believers of all ages.

NCT: The Holy Spirit didn't indwell believers until after the cross. (Some would affirm agreement with CT).

MCT: Same as CT

PRO: I agree with NCT (and DT, for that matter).

The law as a rule of living
CT: The OC law is a rule for living, but only the "moral law". The ceremonial and civil laws were abolished.

NCT: All of the OC law was abolished and only the laws of the NT apply to the believer.

MCT: The OC was a covenant of works. The believer's rule of living has always been Christ regardless of what age in which they lived. The OC law was given to drive the elect to Christ and cause them to rest in His vicarious obedience to the Father, including the fulfillment of the revealed law because this truly defines righteousness in terms of His life. Commandments involving timeless principles (from all covenants) are good as a rule of conduct, but the law of God is written on the heart of every believer and thus every believer is motivated to obey the law to Christ out of love and gratitude instead of obligation.

PRO: I think I agree with MCT.

Sign of the New Covenant
CT: The sign of the new covenant is baptism just like circumcision was in the OC. Many believe babies ought to be baptized just like babies were circumcised in the OC.

NCT: The sign of the new covenant is baptism and only believers ought to be baptized.

MCT: The sign of the covenant of grace is the circumcision of the heart which is the inner testimony and assurance of the Holy Spirit in the gift of saving faith. Water baptism is an outward testimony commanded by Christ to celebrate the reality of participation in Christ's death, burial, and resurrection through Holy Spirit regeneration unto belief in the gospel.

PRO: I agree with NCT (and parts of MCT). To me it is a categorical confusion between: the sign and the thing signified, to call "the circumcision of the heart" the sign of the New Covenant, as MCT does.

I promised in my last post that I would write more although on further reflection, I'm not sure what else could be written. The events of the past few months have just further proven to me that our country is so far from being Christian, as so many people would say that it is, that it quite astonishes me. Another thing that I have been reflecting on is just how awry how concept of capitalism has gone and even in our ideas of the corporation. Since when is a corporate office in another state been able to make the best business decision for a local store? It just doesn't make any sense. Has the United States just become a big corporation?

I am reading the graphic adaption of the 9/11 Report. Some things have really stuck out to me. First of all, in the wake of 9/11, there is no way that the United States could have continued the same policy it had in regards to terrorism. The policy was passive and the events of 9/11 dictated that the U.S. had to take a more aggressive stand against terrorism. This would include preemptive strikes against anyone thought to be harboring terrorists or aiding terrorism. However, in the wake of 9/11, what has struck me so hard is that somewhere this policy went very wrong. As a matter of fact, it did not even take two years before we began to see just how wrong this policy can be in the hands of the wrong people. It is apparent to myself now, in the year 2006, that the "fact" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was wrong. At the very least, our intelligence was very wrong (and someone's head should roll for it); at the very worst, our President deliberatatly lied to us (and his head should roll for it). In my humble opinion, and I do stress that this is my own humble opinion, our President and his cabinet deliberatatly set into motion a series of propaganda and lies in order to bolster its case for a war in Iraq.

I realize that to some of you, this is shocking to hear coming from me. I questioned the war in the beginning and then came out in favor of it. But time has proven me wrong and I can only step back and say that something has seriously gone wrong. After much reflection and a bit of research, I believe that I may have part of the answer. President Truman, in his farewell address to the nation, used a term that he coined: the military industrial complex. He envisioned a time in this nation's near future when our foreign policy would be dictated by the military. His prophecy has come true. In the years following World War II, the Department of Defense is, by far, the largest section of our national budget. As a matter of fact, it is larger than the all the other departments combined. This is not because we are at war. This was an intentional build-up propagated by Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan to destroy the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Indeed, this build-up, particularly during the Reagan Administration, is one of the primary reasons for the fall of the Soviet Empire. Reagan literally outspent the Russians and the result was the fall of the Iron Curtain.

However, in the years following the fall of the Soviet Union, we faced a new enemy. Terrorism became a growing national threat. It was prodded by Saudi America's decision to let the United States use their land as a headquarters for the first Persian Gulf War. In retrospect, we should have never been involved in that war. The United States and its supporters like to use terms like "protecting our way of life" and "spreading democracy." These are really nothing more than code words for American Imperialism. In a nutshell, we have decided that our "way of life" is better than anyone else's in the world, and now we are on a military campaign to ensure than "democracy" is brought to it. Democracy is a wonderful thing. Capitalism is even a wonderful thing, but America has taken it to an extreme and capitalism is now blatant materialism. We are an arrogant people who think that sharing our materialism with the rest of the world will somehow make them a better place to live. This is wrong. And it has to be stopped. I will write more later...